alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RUSSELL G. DEPASQUALE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1487

[November 7, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ilona Maxine Holmes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-16792CF10A.

Russell DePasquale, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

CONCESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Russell DePasquale appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We conclude 

that the trial court erred in denying the motion as successive and 

untimely. We therefore reverse and remand for the court to consider the 

motion on its merits.

DePasquale was charged in this case with trafficking in oxycodone 

while he was on probation in three other cases for possession of cocaine. 

The court found that he violated probation by committing the new offense 

and sentenced him to three consecutive terms of five years in prison. 

DePasquale filed a rule 3.850 motion in August 2012 that was denied 

following an evidentiary hearing.

In November 2014, DePasquale entered a negotiated plea to the 

trafficking charge and was sentenced to eight years in prison. He did not 

appeal. On November 1, 2016, he filed a rule 3.850 motion arguing that 

counsel misadvised him to enter the plea. He amended the motion in 
2

January 2018. The trial court denied the motion as untimely and 

successive to the August 2012 motion. This appeal followed.

The trial court erred in denying the motion as successive. The motion 

filed in this case cannot be deemed successive to the motion filed in the 

VOP cases because DePasquale is challenging a different conviction and 

sentence. See Rogers v. State, 970 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). 

Also, DePasquale could not have raised his challenge to the November 

2014 plea in his first motion because that motion was filed more than two 

years before the plea was entered.

The trial court also erred in denying the motion as untimely. Because 

DePasquale did not file a direct appeal, the judgment and sentence became 

final in December 2014, after the time for filing a notice of appeal expired. 

See Rincon v. State, 996 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). DePasquale 

timely filed his rule 3.850 motion less than two years later, on November 

1, 2016. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b). He was free to amend the motion 

in January 2018 because he did not allege any new claims and the court 

had not taken any action on the motion. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e).

Accordingly, we reverse the denial of DePasquale’s rule 3.850 motion 

as successive and untimely and remand for the trial court to consider the 

January 2018 amended motion on its merits.

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 In connection with the Quarterly Report of T-3 Energy Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gus D.
Halas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ GUS D. HALASGus D. HalasChief Executive Officer
May 12, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to T-3 Energy Services, Inc. and will be retained by T-3 Energy
Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
August 10, 1998

20798

#### State v. Fletcher

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY LYNN COOPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District

Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-96-82-R/B)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Lynn Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Cooper, Nos. CR-90-49; CA-96-82-R/B (W.D.

Va. Mar. 6, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL

338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Appellant's motion for

discovery and expansion of the record is hereby denied. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1989-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement  of  operations
contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,311
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,001
<PP&E>                                         8,671,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,737,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,190,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,562
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,979,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,190,617
<SALES>                                        908,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               919,530
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,597,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (826,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (826,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (826,418)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  adiministrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Jokay

16489

8/29/95

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         680,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,264,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   155,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,392,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,976,000
<PP&E>                                       1,649,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 433,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,584,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,648,000
<BONDS>                                      6,238,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,359,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,584,000
<SALES>                                     27,031,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,031,000
<CGS>                                       12,670,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,670,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,009,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,809,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (715,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,524,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,524,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        


</TABLE>
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Chronic Wasting Disease

Management and Response Funding

Opportunities

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS provides millions of dollars each year to State and Tribal governments,

universities, and others to control chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wild and farmed

cervids, such as deer and elk.

Funded projects address CWD research, management, and response activities. They

support one or more priorities:

Improving management of CWD-affected farmed and wild cervid populations

Improving management of CWD-affected areas or premises

Researching amplification assays and other new test methods

Researching the application of or implementing a whole genome predictive

genetics CWD management plan for farmed cervid herds

Developing and delivering educational materials or programs

Find specific information about CWD in farmed cervids and wild cervids.

Open CWD Funding Opportunities
No opportunities are open at this time. Please check back soon or sign up to receive

emails about future opportunities.

See More See Less

Sign up for email updates

How To Apply for APHIS Funding: Getting Started 

Guidelines for Using Funds 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

Accomplishments and Funded Projects To Fight

Chronic Wasting Disease

APHIS has invested over $29 million for projects to research, manage, and respond

to CWD. For details, view our lists and summaries of funded projects below.

Farmed Cervid

2023 Spending Plan: Farmed Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(167.84 KB)

2022 Spending Plan: Farmed Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(216.43 KB)

2022 Project Executive Summaries: Farmed Cervid CWD Management and

Response Activities (344.77 KB)

2021 Spending Plan: Farmed Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(199.06 KB)

Wild Cervid

2023 Spending Plan: Wild Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(222.6 KB)

2022 Spending Plan: Wild Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(198.06 KB)

2021 Spending Plan: Wild Cervid CWD Management and Response Activities

(200.28 KB)

2021 Project Executive Summaries: Wild Cervid CWD Management and

Response Activities (315.51 KB)
Tribal Nations Wild Cervid

2023 Spending Plan: Tribal Nations Wild Cervid CWD Opportunities (151.96 KB)

2022 Spending Plan: Tribal Nations Wild Cervid CWD Opportunities (180.88 KB)

2021 Spending Plan: Tribal Nations Wild Cervid CWD Opportunities (225.69 KB)

2021 Project Executive Summaries: Tribal Nations Wild Cervid CWD

Opportunities (215.55 KB)

Contact Us

If you have questions about applying for farmed cervid funding opportunities, email

us at vs.sp.cervid.health@usda.gov.

For questions about wild cervid funding opportunities, email us at aphisws.cwd_agreements@usda.gov.
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Traveling With Food or Agricultural

Products

Last Modified: 

Print

Welcome! This page will help you understand which foods or agricultural products

can be brought into the United States from another country or into the U.S. mainland

from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Help Stop the Spread of African Swine Fever

Learn how foods containing pork can carry disease into the United States

Where Are You Traveling From?

Hawaii 
Puerto Rico or U.S. Virgin Islands 

Canada 

Another Country 
Important Travel Considerations

Information for Travelers Who Come Into Contact With Animals

U.S. citizens and international visitors who visit a farm or make contact with

live animals in another country can unknowingly spread potentially devastating

animal diseases.

Before entering the United States, travelers should:

1. Launder all clothing worn at the farm or while in contact with animals,

2. Remove any dirt or debris from shoes, equipment, or other articles before

packing them,

3. Shower or bathe, wash hair, clean fingernails, and clear nasal passages (blow

nose).

4. Declare to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials that they have been in

close proximity to livestock before entering the United States. 
If you are traveling with a pet or other small animal, please visit Pet Travel for more

information on how to safely bring a pet into the United States.

Animal disease outbreaks occur regularly all over the world, and travelers may not

know when an outbreak has occurred. Some animal diseases (such as foot-andmouth disease, avian or swine influenza, African horse sickness, and many other

serious conditions of livestock and other animals) can survive and remain infectious

for up to a week on clothing, shoes, and other items. The diseases, while they may

not affect people, can also be carried on skin, hair, under fingernails, and in nasal

passages. In addition, pets–such as dogs, cats, birds, and other small animals–can

carry these diseases without showing any signs of illness.

Declaring Items at Customs

Travelers entering the United States must declare all agricultural or wildlife products

to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. You must also tell them if you visited

a farm or were in contact with animals before traveling to the United States.

U.S. agricultural inspectors will examine your items to be sure they meet entry

requirements and do not harbor harmful foreign pests or diseases. U.S. inspectors

have the authority to make a final determination about whether your products can

enter the country. We recommend that you keep receipts and original packaging of

agricultural products as proof of their country of origin.

As long as you declare all the agricultural products you are bringing with

you, you will not face any penalties—even if an inspector determines that

these products cannot enter the country.
1 

### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00146 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

VICENTE FABIAN , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas.



## O R D E R
Before Justi ces Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Vicente Fabian, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his
conviction in trial court cause number CR

- 4311

- 11

- A . The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does n ot have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of2

appeal is not made a part of the record. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Johnathan T. Ball , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) re view the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3 ) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of receipt of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04

- 03

- 00473

- CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2 (b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the m otion. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.2. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed the 17th day of June 2014

.
#### Elizabeth Schoonmaker et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Liberty Loomis Hospital, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Sullivan County,

November 24, 1958.

*Levine <& Levine*for plaintiffs.

*Watts, Oakes & Vandervoort*for defendant.

*925Isadore Bookstein, J.

Plaintiffs move to be relieved of an order of preclusion. Defendant moves to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution.

Failures to comply with demands for bills of particulars have created a veritable avalanche of motions for orders of preclusion. In this district the number of such motions in a year reaches four figures. A drastic remedy is absolutely essential to eliminate the great and unnecessary burden which the failures to honor demands for bills of particulars have placed upon the courts. One remedy is to deny applications to be relieved from orders of preclusion, except in the most extraordinary situation.

In this case, the delay in seeking relief from the order of preclusion is so great, as would ordinarily demand a denial of the relief sought. However, the reasons for the delay are exceptional and extraordinary. These stem from the mental condition of one of the plaintiffs. The circumstances are such that a denial of the relief sought would, I think, be an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

So far as defendant’s motion is concerned, the delay in filing a note of issue is, of course, correspondingly great. Yet the filing of a note of issue would have served no purpose without service of the bill of particulars and the completion of the examination before trial.

For the same reasons which prompt the granting of plaintiffs’ motion, the motion of defendant is denied, without prejudice to a renewal thereof, if plaintiffs fail promptly to serve the bill of particulars, complete the examination before trial and file a note of issue.

Submit order.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Hometaxonomyterm
Park/Garden Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 95-2315

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Lawren J. Barse, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 1995 Filed: January 3, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lawren J. Barse appeals the district court's 1 sentencing upon revocation of his supervised release. We affirm.
Barse pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court sentenced Barse to four months in prison and two years of supervised release, which began in January 1994. In March 1995, Barse's probation officer petitioned for revocation on the grounds that Barse violated the terms of his release. The district court granted the petition and sentenced Barse to six months in prison and two years supervised release. On appeal, Barse argues the district court erred in imposing combined-2- terms of imprisonment and supervised release that exceed Barse's original two-year term of supervised release.
We review a sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), a term of supervised release imposed upon revocation may "not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release." Barse's initial offense authorized as much as three years of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(4), 3583(b)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D). Barse's two-year term of supervised release falls within the two years and six months remaining when Barse's six-month prison sentence is subtracted from the three years of supervised release authorized by statute.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.